As for Iskov, there's nothing to address, because everything he says is copied from Yaron Yadan (as I explained in a comment on column 664), and I wouldn't be surprised if Elbaum copied from him too, directly or indirectly. In any case, Elbaum really is worth responding to, because his words weren't published on just some random website.

https://www.the7eye.org.il/529593

The resemblance between the new critics of the Talmud and apostates and antisemites from the Middle Ages and the modern era does indeed make any Jew with historical consciousness uncomfortable, but that isn't an answer. As Yehoiakim noted, apparently the source of most or all claims of this kind nowadays is Yaron Yadan, and the very fact that for more than two decades his arguments have not received a serious response (though they have received a few unserious ones) only strengthens in me, and I believe in many others as well, the feeling that there really is no answer.
I therefore turned to Rabbi Michi, who as I understand it is both a Talmudic rabbi and a philosopher and scientist, so maybe he would finally pick up the gauntlet. But if he is referring me to an article like this, it seems the situation is hopeless.
Just so I'm not misunderstood: I'm not Haredi or a naive believer looking for answers about how there are no scientific errors in the Talmud, or how its morality matches today's exactly. That is not the main claim of Yadan and those like him (though they certainly use such arguments too against naive believers, who are the majority). The hard conclusion that emerges from their words is that the Talmud is a distorted, bizarre, ridiculous, foolish, confused, and primitive book, even relative to its own time. And that all the respect we have for it and for the Sages in general—from Haredim to secular Jews, and in fact so many wise Jews over the past thousand-plus years—is the result of education alone, which blinds us from seeing them as they really are, instead of attributing to them great and wondrous wisdom.

If you want to insist, then of course no answer will help you. I posted here an article I had just seen, and in my view it is perfectly fine. But of course I didn't post it as an alternative to a full response from me. It also doesn't pretend to offer such a full response.
By the way, not long ago I had a debate with Yaron Yadan (who is the source of all these people), and because of problems with the recording it was ultimately decided not to broadcast it. But the moderator himself (who is not religious) told me that in his opinion Yaron Yadan was defeated. These claims strike me as misunderstanding from beginning to end, and the writer here certainly pointed out some important points, even if not all of them.

On the contrary, I've been waiting for years for someone to answer properly. The fact that I'm no longer willing to be like some yeshiva boy learning Talmud, marveling at the arguments and then immediately convincing himself that there must be genius behind them that he simply doesn't understand, doesn't mean that Yadan's view and that of his disciples appeals to me (to put it mildly), and that's why I'm insisting on it.
As for the debate—it really is a shame. But maybe it's for the best, because now you'll be forced to write an orderly and comprehensive article. 😉 In debates, sometimes the one who is more talented and skilled at speaking is the winner, even if the other side has better arguments. Sometimes the less verbal side doesn't even get to lay out his arguments. Of course that can happen in writing too if one side is a gifted writer, but in my opinion it's easier to examine arguments that way than in spoken conversation.

Menashe—your logic is very interesting. All the hundreds of millions of Jews who lived in the past, with all their righteous people and sages, were distorted, confused, and lacking in morality, and only Elbaum and his friends from the "Haaretz" school—many of whom are full of sympathy for those who seek our lives and of deep hatred for the Torah and those who study it—are the moral compass, the representatives of absolute wisdom and truth?

I'm not saying there aren't good questions. I myself have struggled more than once with questions like these. But someone who gets beyond the narrow and limited perspective of modern man, and sheds enlightened arrogance in order to try to understand a different point of view, will develop a completely different attitude toward the whole matter.

Moshe, replace the word Jews in your question with Christians/Muslims and you'll get the answer.
By the way, I already replied above that according to their approach, the education we received from childhood—that the Sages were great wise men—blinds us from seeing them objectively.
And I'll copy for you from Maimonides' words about astrology, which fit here as well:
"You should also know that fools have already composed thousands of books, and many people advanced in years—not in wisdom—wasted all their days studying those books, imagining that those vanities were great wisdom, and it entered their minds that they were great sages because they knew those disciplines.
For when most of the world, or even all of it except for a few individuals, the remnant whom the Lord calls, errs about something—that is what I am informing you of, and it is the great sickness and the grievous malady: that whenever a person finds things written in books, at first it comes into his mind that they are true. All the more so if the books are ancient.
And if many people have occupied themselves with those books and discussed them, the mind of the hasty person immediately jumps to say that these are words of wisdom. And he says in his heart: Did the scribes' pen labor falsely? And did all these people discuss these matters for nothing?!

And this is what destroyed our kingdom, laid waste our Temple, prolonged our exile, and brought us to our present state. For our fathers sinned and are no more, because they found many books on these matters of the astrologers, which are a central part of idolatry, as we explained in the Laws of Idolatry. They erred and were drawn after them, and imagined that they were glorious sciences and of great benefit. They did not occupy themselves with learning warfare or conquering lands, but rather thought that those things would help them."

I think the same thing about Christians and Muslims. And I suggest you take into account that the generation of the year 2400 will say the same things about our generation, and will mock our wisdom and our morality. I hope the education we pass on to our descendants will succeed in preventing this arrogant and condescending outlook, at least partially.

I am not impressed by Maimonides' words. He too was sure of the truth of Aristotelian truth, and he too wrote things that people today denounce as primitive and foolish. So what?
He is simply writing his view, nothing more.

Moshe, what is the benefit of the Sages' discussion of the sexual organs of various sages (Bava Metzia 85a, if I remember correctly)?

See Tosafot there, who explains that it is in order to prevent casting aspersions on overweight people. To us this sounds very strange, but apparently in their time the subject was socially sensitive. See Niddah 13a, that one may hold the organ and urinate in order to prevent casting aspersions on his children.

In my opinion, that whole Talmudic passage there also comes to teach another insight: that some of the sages had powerful physical capacities (they were heavy, had strong sexual desire, unusual physical strength and beauty), and nevertheless this did not prevent them from investing their vigor in Torah study—contrary to the view of those who think one must be ascetic and naturally spiritual in order to rise spiritually.

It is worth noting the Mishnah in chapter 9 of tractate Negaim: "You are a great sage, for you upheld the words of the Sages," and the Tosafot Yom Tov explained that the wisdom is not the explanation he proposed in itself, but the fact that he understood that if the Sages said something puzzling, one should not belittle it or dismiss it quickly, but rather try to understand the reasoning in their words.

I think this topic has nothing to do with Judaism or religion at all. Sometimes you can find strange things in the books of ancient philosophers. The natural tendency of a person in our generation is to chuckle at such things and dismiss them, but reason says that if the writer was regarded as a wise and intelligent person, it is likely that there is some logic to his words, and the reason it seems strange is the gap between generations and worldviews.

Hello Rabbi,
Is there any news on the matter?
And is the debate that was published on YouTube (I haven't watched it yet) the same debate mentioned here that it was decided not to broadcast?

On which matter? Yes.